The electronics companies also shaped the way we watch television. RCA developed the color broadcasting system that ultimately became the NTSC standard. Because RCA was both a television broadcaster (NBC) and a television set manufacturer, the company had ample incentive to promote color television.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Changes at WNSH 94.7
- Thread starter Barry
- Start date
The electronics companies also shaped the way we watch television. RCA developed the color broadcasting system that ultimately became the NTSC standard. Because RCA was both a television broadcaster (NBC) and a television set manufacturer, the company had ample incentive to promote color television.
In the same way, RCA made phonographs and owned a record label, so it invented the 45 RPM record. CBS owned Columbia records, and they invented the 33-1/3 disc. CBS also had its own color TV system, but it was cumbersome and was not accepted. Today's media companies don't see themselves in the hardware business.
Zenith was an early FM broadcaster.
The best case is Crosley which owned 500,000 watt WLW.
Sarkes-Tarzian in Indiana had FM and a TV station.
Stromberg-Carlson owned WHAM in Rochester.
Apparently one didn't need a radio set to hear WLW during its brief 500,000-watt period—a barbed-wire fence or metal downspout sufficed.
I had the FM-HD add-on for the iPhone. Still have it, but, due to upgrades it doesn't work anymore. It was only a one chip receiver attached to the connector and used the phone for controls and audio. It did not use the electronics or math of the phone except for the display.
Very poor range.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
That was my experience too. Stations 15 miles away would fade in and out. The constant switching between digital and analog on the Zune HD was frustrating. I can’t imagine any consumer tolerating it for very long. Yet I’m able to stream my favourite radio station for 500 mile road trips without any buffering, static, or interference.
Because the industry... and our regulators... did not get behind radio-on-the-smartphone, it did not get regulated and improved.
For a true national emergency, it would have been the best system ever. Truly portable, with everyone everywhere. Mostly immune to failures in land mobile (cellular telephone) failings, it would have been the perfect emergency system. With full support, all the antenna issues in phones would have been resolved.
But the phone companies prevailed, as they wanted the minutes to bill.
Out of curiosity, what age group are you in... 18-35, 35-54, under 18 or over 55?
Curated and moderated music is the strong point of terrestrial, ad-supported radio. What you are saying is, "I'd rather have a stream" and today you can do that. But don't expect it from traditional radio.
I was frustrated with that too, knowing the carriers were blocking FM chips so they could sell data instead. But I had FM built into one of my early smartphones (Nokia I think), and it wasn't a great experience. The tuning was clunky and the reception was poor. I also followed some phone forums at the time and even early on, before data became robust enough for reliable streaming, no one (other than broadcasters) was asking for radio tuners in phones.
Since then, with the progression of technology to 3G, then 4G and now 5G, and the expansion of cell coverage during the same time, we can all see that streaming became a part of modern life. Streaming devices are today's equivalent (and much more) of the transistor radio that broadcasters seem to want to resurrect from the 60s. Everyone has lots of data in their plans, everyone gets emergency alerts on their phones, and FM receivers in phones would have become obsolete by now anyway, especially with the removal of headphone jacks and the antenna functionality that came from the associated headphone cords.
I still value OTA broadcasting and I have plenty of standalone radios that I like very much, but it was never the right technology for cell phones and most people never cared. Smartphones were always a digital experience, not analog. In the end, I don't believe FM chips would have helped broadcasters for long if at all, even if they had succeeded in getting them mandated and regulated on cell phones.
The problem is that cellular only provides no service/poor service in many rural areas, or at times of high congestion or in the event of failure of local cells. Radio can provide service over wide areas in the case of storms, floods, and other disasters. Cellular can not.
So after a disaster, cellular service will not work, sometimes in large areas. In parts of Puerto Rico it took months to get even 50% cellular service back but both AM and FM were active 100% of the time.
The issue is that a mandate to have FM on cellphones would have resulted in great improvements as technology was applied to the need.
So after a disaster, cellular service will not work, sometimes in large areas. In parts of Puerto Rico it took months to get even 50% cellular service back but both AM and FM were active 100% of the time.
The issue is that a mandate to have FM on cellphones would have resulted in great improvements as technology was applied to the need.
Last edited:
35-36.
Then you don't listen in the way the majority of terrestrial, ad-supported stations program for. Most actual users of terrestrial radio want the added personality or human presence.
If you don't like it, as is often pointed out on this board, there are thousands of streaming only options with not talk and no or limited ads.
Even if a mandate had resulted in improvements, they would have died with the end of headphone jacks.
I always thought it was ironic that an industry known for its right-leaning tilt, advocate of the free market, less regulation, small government and all that, begged the government to regulate their way into the phone market. Mandating FM chips in phones was always a priority for the radio lobby and no one else. Without legislation, the market responded to the actual demand.
Anyway, everyone I know who lives in a rural area has at least one emergency radio in their house. They definitely have one in each car. And in storm-prone areas they nearly all have S.A.M.E. NOAA weather radios too. People know what they need if they live in parts of the country like that. They don't need the government to force it onto a device where they don't want it, especially where it would increase the cost of an already expensive phone purchase.
The industry has a tilt to whatever direction will get it what it wants. Like most industries.
The thing about telecom is they have 100 times more money than radio. Maybe even more.
Not necessarily. All the antennas for different cellular bands are contained inside the phone itself; a mandate would have required matching the inside antenna to FM frequencies. Sort of like using one antenna for all the FMs on the Empire State Building antenna, in fact.
I never got the impression that radio was conservative in all aspects of regulation. I see the executives of stations as a fairly typical spread of all perspectives.
You may be confusing the conservative orientation of talk stations with the opinions of station owners. That is just not the truth. Stations run Rush & Friends because they get audience and make money. Many tried liberal talk, and it never got traction nationally, and even failed after an initial success in very liberal markets like Portland, OR, where Air America was on a better signal than the conservative talkers.
It's all about the Benjamins.
But there was no radio lobby. The NAB only halfheartedly backed it, but did not campaign for it. Mostly, it was a group of broadcasters lead by Emmis, and they did not garner full industry support.
However, the percentages of people with working radios is declining. In urban and suburban areas, it was estimated last year that over 30% of homes have no AM / FM radio. Today, it is likely to be even worse.
Except a quarter wave broadcast band FM antenna is 28~30 inches which is why the headphone cord was used. Cell phones operate on UHF frequencies where tiny antennas work. The lowest frequency used for cell phones is the new 600 MHz LTE band and even that requires less than 5 inches for a quarter wave antenna which still fits inside a handset. Sure you can get FM broadcast receivers to work with a smaller antenna if you add an amp, like a shark fin on a modern car, but that stuff still requires both power to drive it and space for the circuit. The cell phone industry is all about miniaturization and squeezing as many hours out of a battery charge as possible and those things don't fit with their design objectives. At all.
Seems like we're mixing up two points here: Radio as an entertainment medium and radio as an essential service for critical emergency information.
Radio as an entertainment medium is quickly becoming insignificant. Music services like Spotify, Apple, and Google can deliver what listeners want to hear much better than a heavily researched playlist from a corporate program director. For talk radio, there's an infinite number of podcasts although the listener doesn't have the option to call-in live and interact with the host. For DJ mix shows, there's MixCloud and SoundCloud.
The DJ presentation is exclusive to radio. The host can play music with a certain theme or include artist interviews and context behind the songs which can create a very personal experience for the listener. However, this requires significant resources and could impact ratings as it deviates from a predictable canned playlist format...which is why this programming has been replaced with shallow DJ banter. Do you really think people make an effort to tune in at a certain time every day to listen to all four hours of Ryan Seacrest?
There's definitely a role for radio to play as a service for critical information. Cell towers only cover about 2/3 of the country. Yet, one can travel anywhere to the most remote parts of the outback and still be able to receive at least one radio station, even if it's a distant AM signal. However, I would question how many of these stations would actually provide critical info to the public during an emergency. I recall reading about how many stations in Louisiana and Mississippi were either off-air or playing canned music in the days following Katrina. WWL served as a reliable lifeline for communities along the Gulf Coast by providing live and local news during that time but most of the other stations didn't take initiative. We may need to reconsider the amount of land resources, power, and infrastructure required to keep these stations running when they are nothing more than glorified distribution points for repetitive playlists and hollering preachers.
Radio as an entertainment medium is quickly becoming insignificant. Music services like Spotify, Apple, and Google can deliver what listeners want to hear much better than a heavily researched playlist from a corporate program director. For talk radio, there's an infinite number of podcasts although the listener doesn't have the option to call-in live and interact with the host. For DJ mix shows, there's MixCloud and SoundCloud.
The DJ presentation is exclusive to radio. The host can play music with a certain theme or include artist interviews and context behind the songs which can create a very personal experience for the listener. However, this requires significant resources and could impact ratings as it deviates from a predictable canned playlist format...which is why this programming has been replaced with shallow DJ banter. Do you really think people make an effort to tune in at a certain time every day to listen to all four hours of Ryan Seacrest?
There's definitely a role for radio to play as a service for critical information. Cell towers only cover about 2/3 of the country. Yet, one can travel anywhere to the most remote parts of the outback and still be able to receive at least one radio station, even if it's a distant AM signal. However, I would question how many of these stations would actually provide critical info to the public during an emergency. I recall reading about how many stations in Louisiana and Mississippi were either off-air or playing canned music in the days following Katrina. WWL served as a reliable lifeline for communities along the Gulf Coast by providing live and local news during that time but most of the other stations didn't take initiative. We may need to reconsider the amount of land resources, power, and infrastructure required to keep these stations running when they are nothing more than glorified distribution points for repetitive playlists and hollering preachers.
Only one problem: The radio has to be turned on in order for you to receive the critical information. No profit making company is going to keep a radio station up and operating if the only thing it does is send an alert every now and then. That's why the government in the 1920s created this public/private partnership. The government knew it needed to have these radio stations for critical information, but it didn't want to own and operate them.
- Status